Why the Government Lies About Gun Control

The reinvigorated gun control debate has been going on for almost two months now. The Sandy Hook massacre has been exploited ruthlessly by the media and politicians to push their personal agendas for disarming the public.  While a poll recently reported on in Reason Magazine found that 52% agree that politicians are exploiting the massacre for political gains, one has to still wonder why it’s only 52%.  The government clearly have a vested interest in gun control because they will push it even when the majority of people do not want it. Yes, 51% of people do not want assault rifles banned, and very importantly 70% of 18-24 year olds do not want them banned.  Gun control is something the aging baby boomers want and no one else.  I have a rule of thumb: if the majority of baby boomers want it then it must be a dumb idea.  However, if it is political suicide for the government to push such a controversial issue, so what is the real reason why the government want gun control?

The most often professed reason for gun control is to increase public safety.  However, my own investigations taking the homicide rates per country versus the guns per capita per country have found this is not the case at all.  Look at the graph below, if anything the trend is slightly towards more guns, less murder. However, the R value here tells us this trend is so weak it is statistically irrelevant.  So less guns does not equal more safety.  At least for you and me, the common people. There is also a precedent in my own country, Australia, of the effects of stringent gun laws.  This video sums gun control in Australia up nicely but the mainstream media in my country will not let any criticism of the gun laws be known. Personally, I see the failure in our gun laws to increase public safety in the fact that after these gun laws were passed the police had to get their arsenal upgraded from revolvers to glocks because they did not have enough firepower to deal with the criminals they were facing now.  If the gun laws did not affect the criminals’ access to guns and in fact only seems to have emboldened them to commit more armed robberies, then the government should come out and admit that they were wrong, not give their people (the police) more guns. Because if more guns keep the police safe, then they would probably keep us common folk safer too.

Back to the Americans, who are fresh out from an election and now is the perfect time for the government attempt something as unpopular as gun control because if it backfires on them most people will have forgotten about it by the next election.  This has lead to a large number of conspiracy theories about the timing of the Sandy Hook massacre pointing out just how political convenient the timing of the massacre was.  Honestly, I do not have the interest level to investigate whether the massacre was a hoax or not. I am going to assume it actually happened, but it is a sad reality that one has to make a conscious decision to assume something actually happened these days, but that is a reflection on how little faith people can have in the mainstream media and government these days as they increasing attempt to dictate what reality is to us. Anyway, assuming the massacre was real, one has to wonder why when politicians need protection they surround themselves with armed guards, (have you seen American cops? They look more like soldiers every year), but if ordinary people need protection they need to be disarmed.  This is too much like double think to be believed.

Before I get into why the government actually want to take people’s guns off them, I need to declare a couple of personal opinions on the topic of gun control. Firstly, I am going to declare that the government does have a legitimate authority to establish law and order and consequently should have some role in regulating access to firearms. Namely, people who have been convicted of a violent crime, should not be allowed to purchase or own firearms.  To this effect we should have a gun licensing system modelled on the Working with Children Check system.  Basically, one gets a police check, one purchases one’s gun license and then one is free to buy and own as many guns and ammunition one likes of whatever variety one wants and the government will not track it. However, as soon as someone is convicted of a violent crime the police have the authority to come around and confiscate their arms and license.  But for every other law abiding citizen the government have no right to know how many guns and what type they have or how they store them.  A law like this could actually protect people, not harm law-abiding citizens, but these are not the laws being proposed and people should keep this fact firmly in mind at all times during this ‘debate’.

Secondly, I believe that if the government has the right to bare arms in public (police and soldiers) then ordinary citizens should have the right to bare arms in public too.  The government can not have special rights because all people are equal before the law.  Now, if someone who owns a business, say a bank, wants to make being unarmed a condition of entry onto their property then that is a perfectly legal too.  But having special restrictions on what people can do in public or in their own private space, while the government will not restrict themselves is evidence of totalitarian creep.  Also, for those who think “public” means owned by the government, you need to understand that the government do not own anything, we the people own the government.  The government want you to believe the reverse, so they will twist the language to their favour or appeal to superstitious claims like monarchy and divine right.

However, when a government wants gun control, especially on law-abiding citizens, there is something bigger happening.  That bigger thing in this case is revolution.  Yes.  Revolution.  In the next few years we will see revolutions and attempted revolutions all across the Western world and the government know this, so they are preparing every way they can for the eventual war of ruled versus the rulers.  I am not hallucinating. I am not exaggerating.  I am deadly serious, we are all heading for civil war.  My guess is the USA will be ripped apart by civil war years before Australia becomes unstable.  But mark my words, this is about government fears of revolution and nothing else.

Why do I say this?  Because this kind of thing is cyclical.  It was described by Aristotle, all governments whether they are monarchy, aristocracy or democracy eventually succumb to corruption and tyranny.  Like a phoenix, our political institutions go up in flames every 200 years or so and are reborn.  We are now at the beginning of the end of this cycle.  Consider the parallels between our current situation and the French Revolution.

When King Louis XVI ascended to the throne he did so amidst a financial crisis.  France’s involvement in an extensive series of foreign wars had bankrupted the state.  France was taxed to the limit, Jacques Neckler was hired to fix this problem but told the French government that taxes simply could not be raised any higher without causing permanent economic disaster.  Rather than cut back on France’s ridiculously expensive military programs over stretching itself across the entire globe, the French government decided to borrow more money.  They printed more money rather than reduce the size of government and military spending.  Sound familiar?

Well guess what happened next?  There was a bad harvest and high inflation in the same year, the people could not afford to buy food anymore.  A national crisis erupted and the divisions between the three estates became apparent.  The three estates were: the nobility, the clergy and the rest of France.  The modern equivalents might be the politicians, the intellectuals (artists, media, celebrities as well as university administrators) and the people.  The rest of France demanded representation in government in the form of the National Assembly.  The new National Assembly, which now spoke with the support from the vast majority of people in France, whose teeth were rotting from malnutrition, swore to a new constitution on a tennis court.  This was the end of the French Monarchy and the nobles were relieved of control over the country.

The National Assembly then demanded that the financial crisis be resolved by taxing the other two estates, in other words making the nobles and church pay their fair share of taxes.  Now, frankly, no one should be forced to pay taxes because forced taxation is theft.  Taxation should be voluntary or at least legally avoidable with enough effort, so the church and the nobles complained that it was not fair to tax them.  They were right, but they had been effectively enslaving everyone else through taxation for decades and now everyone felt they had a right to exploit and enslave everyone else.  Entitlement from others had gotten embedded into the culture.  Those in power kept arguing and bickering amongst themselves while the financial crisis just kept getting worse and the people demanded either bread or scapegoats.

Scapegoats were in much easier supply however.  So it was time to start pointing fingers and this lead to a reign of terror with the infamous guillotine appearing on the political theatre for the first time.  Through this orgy of bloodshed, chaos and terror the world entered into a war the likes it had never before seen.  Not many people today really know who Napoleon was and what he did, which is a pity, because many of us alive now reading this will live long enough to see a new reign of terror and we will demand a leader like Napoleon to restore order to us again in the years to come.

Back to gun ownership.  The French revolution was not possible until the people were able to arm themselves.  The French army was ridiculously big at the time, the people stormed the Bastille to liberate guns and ammunition. That was the point of the storming of the Bastille.  Once the common people were capable of fighting back against the soldiers that is when the revolution became real.  This is also the real reason why the USA has the second amendment, because in a republic it is far more important that the people be armed than that they have the vote.  The vote really is meaningless, it is a bad joke to call your right to vote meaningful.  The only thing that actually ensures your liberty from tyrannical government is to have enough firepower in your hands to make the police and military think twice about imposing martial law.  Bullies prefer their victims to be defenceless and the instant a few cops get their heads blown off protecting the political estates during a famine brought on by a financial crisis they will change sides and join the people against the governments and elites, as many of them did during the French revolution.  This is the real reason why the government are constantly increasing the armament and equipment the police have while doing everything they can manage to disarm the population.

Everyone in the US government with a brain still capable of critical thinking knows that the financial crisis cannot be avoided, it is only a matter of time before inflation makes food too expensive to buy.  Few people living today in the west actually know what starvation does to you. To understand what starvation does, think of the most horrible thing you could ever do to someone you love, then imagine doing it to them.  That is what starvation does to men.  It is an inescapable fact of life. The cost of food in the USA is going up very quickly now and it will not be long until most people can barely afford to eat.  All it would take right now is for the food stamp program to be halted and the whole country would erupt into civil war.  That is why they are so desperate to disarm to population as soon as they possibly can.  All I can say is think about what is most important in this life, your family and friends.  Make preparations for a famine and arm yourself with survival skills, not just guns, this is going to be a very difficult decade for all of us on this planet.


Just as I was preparing to post this, an article was sent to me from someone in Russia who also sees this like I do: link here.  I wrote this article two days ago, I’m not alone in my thinking.  The world is waking up to the fact that 2013 is very similar to 1789.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Crime, Events, Politics, Law

Author:Jason Sutherland

Resist the temptation to assume that you're always right or wrong. Never succumb to thinking you're so insignificant to trust your own thoughts and feelings. Always be responsible and listen carefully to others before passing judgement. Don't trust governments bearing stolen goods.

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

4 Comments on “Why the Government Lies About Gun Control”

  1. Anonymous
    February 4, 2013 at 6:53 am #

    You write, “The only thing that actually ensures your liberty from tyrannical government is to have enough firepower in your hands to make the police and military think twice about opposing martial law.” I’m guessing you meant imposing.

    • February 4, 2013 at 7:28 am #

      Yes! That’s exactly what I meant. *fixed* Thanks, *hands anonymous a dollar*

  2. Anonymous
    April 8, 2013 at 10:24 pm #

    It is “right to “bear” arms, not right to “bare” arms.


  1. Central Bank Tyranny | Gun Rights - May 28, 2013

    […] For a more in-depth look at the connection between inflation and gun-control laws read this article by Jason Sutherland. […]

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: